Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee v Davidson [2012] NZLCDT 35 [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...Director or Manager of a company for two-and-a-half years. That decision provided useful background information, however we remind ourselves that it dealt with different subject matter from the charge under consideration by the Tribunal and the appeal was argued on the papers without viva voce evidence being heard from Mr Davidson. [8] Mr Davidson’s position has been throughout that it was his honest and genuine belief that the statements made in the prospectus documents and exte...

2. [2025] NZIACDT 37 - ZH v Ma (23 July 2025) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...26(a)(iii). 6. Failed to confirm in writing to the client when the visa application had been lodged and to make on-going timely updates, in breach of cl 26(b). 13 MM v Ma [2024] NZIACDT 10 (12 March 2024) at [43]. 14 Upheld by the District Court on appeal in Ma v [deleted] [2025] NZDC 1128; affirmed by the High Court in Ma v [deleted]. 15 EM v Ma [2024] NZIACDT 25. 11 7. Failed to confirm in writing to the client the details of all material discussions, in breach of cl 26(...

3. OIA-124050.pdf [pdf, 5.3 MB]

   ...was instructed to report back on) was the Hoban V AG case in which the HRC intervened. Excuse me if I'm wrong- I don't believe a decision has been release on this from the CoA yet. https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2404/S00031/court-of-appeal-to-consider-whether-hate-speech-law-is- discriminatory.htm Get Outlook for iOS From: Johnston, Anna <Anna.Johnston@justice govt.nz> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 3:58 PM To: Jonathan Ayling Subject: Follow up from your meeting...

4. Vainu - Succession to Phyliss Harmon (2025) 124 Tākitimu MB 16 (124 TKT 16) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...to support this submission. 5 Hodgson v Succession to Ropata Wharetoetoe Rare (2004) Gisborne Māori Appellate Court MB 120 (34 APGS 120). 6 Vincent v Lewis (2006) 25 FRNZ 714, [2006] NZFLR 812 at [81]. Cited with approval by the Court of Appeal in O’Neill v O’Neill [2021] NZCZ 585 at [16]. 124 Tākitimu MB 20 (a) The test is whether, objectively considered, there has been a breach of moral duty by [the testatrix] judged by the standards of a wise and just testatr...

5. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 v Deobhakta [2013] NZLCDT 55 [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...subsequent investigation and hearing will identify, and then a charge will be framed and laid. As a consequence the facts, matters and particulars of charge may well extend further than what was said in the complaint itself. [17] The Court of Appeal commented on this issue in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society & Ors10 – “… a decision under s 152(2)(a) does not determine the outcome of the complaint. It only determines which body should be seized of it. The decision...

6. Waitangi Tribunal - District 12 Wellington District [pdf, 13 MB]

   RANGAHAUA WHANUI DISTRICT 12 WELLINGTON DISTRICT: PORT NICHOLSON, HUTT VALLEY, PORIRUA, RANGITIKEI, AND MANAWATU DR ROBYN ANDERSON AND KEITH PICKENS AUGUST 1996 WORKING PAPER: FIRST RELEASE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL RANGAHAUA WHANUI SERIES Other reports in the Rangahaua Whanui Series available: District 1: Auckland, R Daamen, P Hamer, and B Rigby District 7: The Volcanic Plateau, B J Bargh District 9: The Whanganui District, S Cross and B Bargh

7. CAC 20006 v Azimi [2014] NZREADT 69 [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...submits that, if we accept that the factual allegations are proved, misconduct findings under s.73(a) must follow. Section 73(a) of the Act is set out above. [54] In Pillai v Messiter (No 2) (1989) 16 NSWLR 197 (NSWCA) the New South Wales Court of Appeal said of misconduct: "Professional misconduct does not arise where there is mere professional incompetence nor deficiencies in the practice of the profession by a practitioner. More is required. Such misconduct includes a delibe...

8. O'Connell & Anor v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...September 2010. 6 Askin v Knox [1989] 1 NZLR 248 (CA). Page | 20 Council officer’s conduct will be judged against the knowledge and practice at the time at which the negligent act or omission was said to take place. [79] The Court of Appeal in Byron Avenue7 accepted that the Council owed a duty of care in its inspections even before the final inspection issuing a Code Compliance Certificate. It stated: [59] I consider that the Hamlin principle imposes on councils i...

9. Zhong v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 32 [pdf, 264 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-100-000105 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 32 BETWEEN HONG ZHONG AND RUN ZHONG Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND ROSE MARY MCLAUGHLAN Second Respondent AND YA WEI LI Third Respondent AND STANLEY CHEN Fourth Respondent AND ORIENT BUILDERS LIMITED Fifth Respondent AND LU ZHENG Sixth Respondent AND HBRC LIMITED Seventh Respondent Hearing: 29, 30 and 31 March 2011 Closing

10. Singh v Singh and Scorpion Liquor (2006) Ltd [2016] NZHRRT 38 [pdf, 274 KB]

    ...Denyer v Scorpion Liquor (2006) Limited [2012] NZERA Auckland 448 5392831, 11 December 2012. 12 employees to sign the entries about them or confirm their hours because the diary was for his use only. [52] He accepted that he did not appeal either decision. Like his mother, he said the reason the wage arrears were not paid for 20 months was that his funds were frozen by the restraining orders. [53] Shane Singh said he assumed that all the mail delivered to Scorpion...